Misrepresenting Libertarianism

Ballot access laws which force all parties other than the remocrats and depublicans to petition their way onto the ballot.

The R&D duopoly that controls the presidential debates and excludes all other candidates that are on enough ballots to win the Electoral College.

The lamestream media that lets them get away with it.

The list goes on and on.
 
Ballot access laws which force all parties other than the remocrats and depublicans to petition their way onto the ballot.

The R&D duopoly that controls the presidential debates and excludes all other candidates that are on enough ballots to win the Electoral College.

The lamestream media that lets them get away with it.

The list goes on and on.

And so, you are saying the Libertarians don't understand how to play within the rules?
 
Ballot access laws which force all parties other than the remocrats and depublicans to petition their way onto the ballot.

The R&D duopoly that controls the presidential debates and excludes all other candidates that are on enough ballots to win the Electoral College.

The lamestream media that lets them get away with it.

The list goes on and on.


And so, you are saying the Libertarians don't understand how to play within the rules?
I'm saying the rules are rigged against not only them, but all other comers who operate outside the imposed R&D duopoly and don't have a huge amount of personal wealth to fund their campaign (i.e. Ross Perot).

They're scared to death that what happened in Minnesota with Jesse Ventura could happen to them.
 
Ballot access laws which force all parties other than the remocrats and depublicans to petition their way onto the ballot.

The R&D duopoly that controls the presidential debates and excludes all other candidates that are on enough ballots to win the Electoral College.

The lamestream media that lets them get away with it.

The list goes on and on.


And so, you are saying the Libertarians don't understand how to play within the rules?
I'm saying the rules are rigged against not only them, but all other comers who operate outside the imposed R&D duopoly and don't have a huge amount of personal wealth to fund their campaign (i.e. Ross Perot).

They're scared to death that what happened in Minnesota with Jesse Ventura could happen to them.

And WHO sets these rules that only seem to impede Libertarians?
 
Having trouble reading for comprehension?...I even bolded the part that you just glossed over.

Try re-reading and reformulating your question.

I read it, genius. But, you are crying about Libertarians, so I thought I would address your whine, directly.
 
What flew clean over your head is that ALL OTHER COMERS are locked out of the process by the Rs&Ds, and their willing accomplices in the corporate lamestream media.

Stating the facts is neither whining nor crying...They are the facts.
 
What flew clean over your head is that ALL OTHER COMERS are locked out of the process by the Rs&Ds, and their willing accomplices in the corporate lamestream media.

Stating the facts is neither whining nor crying...They are the facts.

So, WHO is locking them out? There is nothing in the Constitution that limits this to a two party system? It sounds like the Ds and Rs are simply smarter than ALL OTHER COMERS?
 
"Smarter" as in better at rigging the game from the inside.

I've already listed a few of the ways that this is being done. It's obvious that you're as interested in an honest exploration of the subject as the remocrats and depublicans are in having real competition.

Buh-bye.
 
"Smarter" as in better at rigging the game from the inside.

I've already listed a few of the ways that this is being done. It's obvious that you're as interested in an honest exploration of the subject as the remocrats and depublicans are in having real competition.

Buh-bye.

Good job of NOT bowing out gracefully, Dude...:clap2:
 
Maybe people don't vote for libertardians because they want roads, safe working environments, mandatory market transparency, nutritional information on foodstuffs, safe meat [brought to you by the Muckrakers!], traffic laws, and a desegregated society?
 
Maybe people don't vote for libertardians because they want roads, safe working environments, mandatory market transparency, nutritional information on foodstuffs, safe meat [brought to you by the Muckrakers!], traffic laws, and a desegregated society?

hmmmm?

do I know you? :eusa_think:
 
Harry Browne was a great candidate.

However, the confluence of --among other factors-- the lamestream media blackout, the demopublicratican duopoly debate lockout, biased ballot access requirements, and the completely fallacious "wasted vote" myth, LP candidates can't get a fair and equal hearing before a national audience.

Long and the short of the matter is that the demopublicratican duopoly fears most that if given an honest choice, most people wouldn't choose them.

Harry would have little use for right wing phonies like you that call themselves libertarians. Harry had a conscience and cared about someone other than himself...
 
Vast LWC said:
Liberalism is all about social freedom and economic control. Conservatism is all about economic freedom and social control.

:confused: You sure about that?

I thought conservatives believed in social freedom (unrestrained freedom to control your own destiny by smoking yourself to death, for example), and limited economic control (regulation of private enterprises that service everyone).

I don't even understand such a broad term as "economic freedom." You are free to earn as much as you can. And what aspect of society would conservatives want to "control"?
 
Harry Browne was a great candidate.

However, the confluence of --among other factors-- the lamestream media blackout, the demopublicratican duopoly debate lockout, biased ballot access requirements, and the completely fallacious "wasted vote" myth, LP candidates can't get a fair and equal hearing before a national audience.

Long and the short of the matter is that the demopublicratican duopoly fears most that if given an honest choice, most people wouldn't choose them.

In short, the Libertarians are too stupid to figure out how to work within the constraints of the system.

They also don't ever accumulate enough donations to remain in the spotlight. MSM will carry information that people are most familiar with. The debates are sponsored and also need cash flow to put them on. If they start adding third-party candidates to an already growing list of wannabes of the two major parties, that would only expand a debate program and cost more money. Money money money is always the propellant.

So is this the year that "libertarians" get out of their computer chairs and quit bitching about being non-players and actually DOING something about it? Stay tuned.
 

Forum List

Back
Top